Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Memorial Day
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,381
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 608
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #1
Memorial Day
05-26-2019 11:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,381
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 608
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #2
RE: Memorial Day
Here is what struck me about those 13 facts:

"One of the first occurred in Columbus, Mississippi, on April 25, 1866 (not quite a year after the end of the Civil War), when a group of women visiting a cemetery to decorate the graves of Confederate soldiers placed flowers upon the bare graves of Union soldiers, as well, in the spirit of national unity."

"... at the Arlington National Cemetery on May 30, 1868. Various Washington officials, including General Ulysses S. Grant, presided over the ceremonies. After speeches, children from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphan Home, among others, made their way through the cemetery, strewing flowers on both Union and Confederate graves, reciting prayers, and singing hymns."

So a group of Confederate widows, as well as Washington officials including U. S. grant, saw fit to honor the dead of sides.

How refreshing that they could see that valor was not confined to one side.

A nice contrast to today's view, which holds that any honor given to Confereates, including statues and monuments, need to be wiped from the face of the Earth, and anybody who does not agree is a racist slavery-lover.

from a liberal in Huffpost
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2019 09:27 AM by OptimisticOwl.)
05-28-2019 09:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,830
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #3
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 09:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Here is what struck me about those 13 facts:

"One of the first occurred in Columbus, Mississippi, on April 25, 1866 (not quite a year after the end of the Civil War), when a group of women visiting a cemetery to decorate the graves of Confederate soldiers placed flowers upon the bare graves of Union soldiers, as well, in the spirit of national unity."

"... at the Arlington National Cemetery on May 30, 1868. Various Washington officials, including General Ulysses S. Grant, presided over the ceremonies. After speeches, children from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphan Home, among others, made their way through the cemetery, strewing flowers on both Union and Confederate graves, reciting prayers, and singing hymns."

So a group of Confederate widows, as well as Washington officials including U. S. grant, saw fit to honor the dead of sides.

How refreshing that they could see that valor was not confined to one side.

A nice contrast to today's view, which holds that any honor given to Confereates, including statues and monuments, need to be wiped from the face of the Earth, and anybody who does not agree is a racist slavery-lover.

from a liberal in Huffpost

There is no place for statues memorializing and honoring generals and leaders of the Confederates - remember, those people led an open rebellion against the country.

Museums and historical markers are places for those sorts of remeberances. Memorials honoring the dead and the atrocities of that bloody war make perfect sense and should not be removed (I haven't seen any issues being brought up with those).

But many statues were not erected to honor and memorialize those lost in senseless violence. Many were erected to celebrate the Confederacy, such as the Jefferson Davis monument in New Orleans, which was dedicated in 1911 (during a "whites only" ceremony, no less) on the 50th anniversary of his inauguration. A far cry from laying flowers on graves of soldiers.

We should follow Germany's lead in memorializing our Civil War - focusing only on those who lost in the war or historically important events, and not on the leaders of the side fighting for a great injustice.

Why should we honor and memorialize the leaders of an open rebellion against our country?
05-28-2019 10:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,280
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1785
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #4
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 09:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Here is what struck me about those 13 facts:
"One of the first occurred in Columbus, Mississippi, on April 25, 1866 (not quite a year after the end of the Civil War), when a group of women visiting a cemetery to decorate the graves of Confederate soldiers placed flowers upon the bare graves of Union soldiers, as well, in the spirit of national unity."
"... at the Arlington National Cemetery on May 30, 1868. Various Washington officials, including General Ulysses S. Grant, presided over the ceremonies. After speeches, children from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphan Home, among others, made their way through the cemetery, strewing flowers on both Union and Confederate graves, reciting prayers, and singing hymns."
So a group of Confederate widows, as well as Washington officials including U. S. grant, saw fit to honor the dead of sides.
How refreshing that they could see that valor was not confined to one side.
A nice contrast to today's view, which holds that any honor given to Confereates, including statues and monuments, need to be wiped from the face of the Earth, and anybody who does not agree is a racist slavery-lover.
from a liberal in Huffpost
There is no place for statues memorializing and honoring generals and leaders of the Confederates - remember, those people led an open rebellion against the country.
Museums and historical markers are places for those sorts of remeberances. Memorials honoring the dead and the atrocities of that bloody war make perfect sense and should not be removed (I haven't seen any issues being brought up with those).
But many statues were not erected to honor and memorialize those lost in senseless violence. Many were erected to celebrate the Confederacy, such as the Jefferson Davis monument in New Orleans, which was dedicated in 1911 (during a "whites only" ceremony, no less) on the 50th anniversary of his inauguration. A far cry from laying flowers on graves of soldiers.
We should follow Germany's lead in memorializing our Civil War - focusing only on those who lost in the war or historically important events, and not on the leaders of the side fighting for a great injustice.
Why should we honor and memorialize the leaders of an open rebellion against our country?

So you, 150 years later, know more about what should and should not be done than did contemporaries on both sides who lived through it?

I must say that I am impressed with your ominipotence. Or is it your arrogance?
05-28-2019 10:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,830
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #5
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 10:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 09:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Here is what struck me about those 13 facts:
"One of the first occurred in Columbus, Mississippi, on April 25, 1866 (not quite a year after the end of the Civil War), when a group of women visiting a cemetery to decorate the graves of Confederate soldiers placed flowers upon the bare graves of Union soldiers, as well, in the spirit of national unity."
"... at the Arlington National Cemetery on May 30, 1868. Various Washington officials, including General Ulysses S. Grant, presided over the ceremonies. After speeches, children from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphan Home, among others, made their way through the cemetery, strewing flowers on both Union and Confederate graves, reciting prayers, and singing hymns."
So a group of Confederate widows, as well as Washington officials including U. S. grant, saw fit to honor the dead of sides.
How refreshing that they could see that valor was not confined to one side.
A nice contrast to today's view, which holds that any honor given to Confereates, including statues and monuments, need to be wiped from the face of the Earth, and anybody who does not agree is a racist slavery-lover.
from a liberal in Huffpost
There is no place for statues memorializing and honoring generals and leaders of the Confederates - remember, those people led an open rebellion against the country.
Museums and historical markers are places for those sorts of remeberances. Memorials honoring the dead and the atrocities of that bloody war make perfect sense and should not be removed (I haven't seen any issues being brought up with those).
But many statues were not erected to honor and memorialize those lost in senseless violence. Many were erected to celebrate the Confederacy, such as the Jefferson Davis monument in New Orleans, which was dedicated in 1911 (during a "whites only" ceremony, no less) on the 50th anniversary of his inauguration. A far cry from laying flowers on graves of soldiers.
We should follow Germany's lead in memorializing our Civil War - focusing only on those who lost in the war or historically important events, and not on the leaders of the side fighting for a great injustice.
Why should we honor and memorialize the leaders of an open rebellion against our country?

So you, 150 years later, know more about what should and should not be done than did contemporaries on both sides who lived through it?

I must say that I am impressed with your ominipotence. Or is it your arrogance?

No clue what you're getting at there or where you're getting 150 years later.
05-28-2019 10:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,673
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 23
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #6
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 10:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 09:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Here is what struck me about those 13 facts:
"One of the first occurred in Columbus, Mississippi, on April 25, 1866 (not quite a year after the end of the Civil War), when a group of women visiting a cemetery to decorate the graves of Confederate soldiers placed flowers upon the bare graves of Union soldiers, as well, in the spirit of national unity."
"... at the Arlington National Cemetery on May 30, 1868. Various Washington officials, including General Ulysses S. Grant, presided over the ceremonies. After speeches, children from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphan Home, among others, made their way through the cemetery, strewing flowers on both Union and Confederate graves, reciting prayers, and singing hymns."
So a group of Confederate widows, as well as Washington officials including U. S. grant, saw fit to honor the dead of sides.
How refreshing that they could see that valor was not confined to one side.
A nice contrast to today's view, which holds that any honor given to Confereates, including statues and monuments, need to be wiped from the face of the Earth, and anybody who does not agree is a racist slavery-lover.
from a liberal in Huffpost
There is no place for statues memorializing and honoring generals and leaders of the Confederates - remember, those people led an open rebellion against the country.
Museums and historical markers are places for those sorts of remeberances. Memorials honoring the dead and the atrocities of that bloody war make perfect sense and should not be removed (I haven't seen any issues being brought up with those).
But many statues were not erected to honor and memorialize those lost in senseless violence. Many were erected to celebrate the Confederacy, such as the Jefferson Davis monument in New Orleans, which was dedicated in 1911 (during a "whites only" ceremony, no less) on the 50th anniversary of his inauguration. A far cry from laying flowers on graves of soldiers.
We should follow Germany's lead in memorializing our Civil War - focusing only on those who lost in the war or historically important events, and not on the leaders of the side fighting for a great injustice.
Why should we honor and memorialize the leaders of an open rebellion against our country?

So you, 150 years later, know more about what should and should not be done than did contemporaries on both sides who lived through it?

I must say that I am impressed with your ominipotence. Or is it your arrogance?

A lot of those statues (as Lad alluded to) were erected in the early 1900's as an open FU to black people working towards equal rights. So probably neither omnipotence nor arrogance.
05-28-2019 10:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,280
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1785
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #7
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 09:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Here is what struck me about those 13 facts:
"One of the first occurred in Columbus, Mississippi, on April 25, 1866 (not quite a year after the end of the Civil War), when a group of women visiting a cemetery to decorate the graves of Confederate soldiers placed flowers upon the bare graves of Union soldiers, as well, in the spirit of national unity."
"... at the Arlington National Cemetery on May 30, 1868. Various Washington officials, including General Ulysses S. Grant, presided over the ceremonies. After speeches, children from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphan Home, among others, made their way through the cemetery, strewing flowers on both Union and Confederate graves, reciting prayers, and singing hymns."
So a group of Confederate widows, as well as Washington officials including U. S. grant, saw fit to honor the dead of sides.
How refreshing that they could see that valor was not confined to one side.
A nice contrast to today's view, which holds that any honor given to Confereates, including statues and monuments, need to be wiped from the face of the Earth, and anybody who does not agree is a racist slavery-lover.
from a liberal in Huffpost
There is no place for statues memorializing and honoring generals and leaders of the Confederates - remember, those people led an open rebellion against the country.
Museums and historical markers are places for those sorts of remeberances. Memorials honoring the dead and the atrocities of that bloody war make perfect sense and should not be removed (I haven't seen any issues being brought up with those).
But many statues were not erected to honor and memorialize those lost in senseless violence. Many were erected to celebrate the Confederacy, such as the Jefferson Davis monument in New Orleans, which was dedicated in 1911 (during a "whites only" ceremony, no less) on the 50th anniversary of his inauguration. A far cry from laying flowers on graves of soldiers.
We should follow Germany's lead in memorializing our Civil War - focusing only on those who lost in the war or historically important events, and not on the leaders of the side fighting for a great injustice.
Why should we honor and memorialize the leaders of an open rebellion against our country?
So you, 150 years later, know more about what should and should not be done than did contemporaries on both sides who lived through it?
I must say that I am impressed with your ominipotence. Or is it your arrogance?
No clue what you're getting at there or where you're getting 150 years later.

Math. 2019-1866 = 153, 2019-1868 = 151. Those are the dates in OO's posts, and the people acting in those cases were contemporaries.

(05-28-2019 10:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  A lot of those statues (as Lad alluded to) were erected in the early 1900's as an open FU to black people working towards equal rights. So probably neither omnipotence nor arrogance.

I don't believe either OO or I were referring to things done in the early 1900s.
05-28-2019 10:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,830
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #8
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 10:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 09:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Here is what struck me about those 13 facts:
"One of the first occurred in Columbus, Mississippi, on April 25, 1866 (not quite a year after the end of the Civil War), when a group of women visiting a cemetery to decorate the graves of Confederate soldiers placed flowers upon the bare graves of Union soldiers, as well, in the spirit of national unity."
"... at the Arlington National Cemetery on May 30, 1868. Various Washington officials, including General Ulysses S. Grant, presided over the ceremonies. After speeches, children from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphan Home, among others, made their way through the cemetery, strewing flowers on both Union and Confederate graves, reciting prayers, and singing hymns."
So a group of Confederate widows, as well as Washington officials including U. S. grant, saw fit to honor the dead of sides.
How refreshing that they could see that valor was not confined to one side.
A nice contrast to today's view, which holds that any honor given to Confereates, including statues and monuments, need to be wiped from the face of the Earth, and anybody who does not agree is a racist slavery-lover.
from a liberal in Huffpost
There is no place for statues memorializing and honoring generals and leaders of the Confederates - remember, those people led an open rebellion against the country.
Museums and historical markers are places for those sorts of remeberances. Memorials honoring the dead and the atrocities of that bloody war make perfect sense and should not be removed (I haven't seen any issues being brought up with those).
But many statues were not erected to honor and memorialize those lost in senseless violence. Many were erected to celebrate the Confederacy, such as the Jefferson Davis monument in New Orleans, which was dedicated in 1911 (during a "whites only" ceremony, no less) on the 50th anniversary of his inauguration. A far cry from laying flowers on graves of soldiers.
We should follow Germany's lead in memorializing our Civil War - focusing only on those who lost in the war or historically important events, and not on the leaders of the side fighting for a great injustice.
Why should we honor and memorialize the leaders of an open rebellion against our country?

So you, 150 years later, know more about what should and should not be done than did contemporaries on both sides who lived through it?

I must say that I am impressed with your ominipotence. Or is it your arrogance?

A lot of those statues (as Lad alluded to) were erected in the early 1900's as an open FU to black people working towards equal rights. So probably neither omnipotence nor arrogance.

Owl#s must have obviously been using his own omnipotence to get inside my head about something I didn't discuss, since 1911+150 = 2061, and I don't think we're quite there yet.

I can use my critical thinking skills I developed at Rice and clearly see that a monument erected of a leader of the Confederacy, erected nearly 50 years after the end of the war, and erected on the 50th anniversary of the inauguration of the president of the Confederacy was not, in fact, erected to commemorate those killed during the Civil War.
05-28-2019 11:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,830
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #9
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 10:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 09:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Here is what struck me about those 13 facts:
"One of the first occurred in Columbus, Mississippi, on April 25, 1866 (not quite a year after the end of the Civil War), when a group of women visiting a cemetery to decorate the graves of Confederate soldiers placed flowers upon the bare graves of Union soldiers, as well, in the spirit of national unity."
"... at the Arlington National Cemetery on May 30, 1868. Various Washington officials, including General Ulysses S. Grant, presided over the ceremonies. After speeches, children from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphan Home, among others, made their way through the cemetery, strewing flowers on both Union and Confederate graves, reciting prayers, and singing hymns."
So a group of Confederate widows, as well as Washington officials including U. S. grant, saw fit to honor the dead of sides.
How refreshing that they could see that valor was not confined to one side.
A nice contrast to today's view, which holds that any honor given to Confereates, including statues and monuments, need to be wiped from the face of the Earth, and anybody who does not agree is a racist slavery-lover.
from a liberal in Huffpost
There is no place for statues memorializing and honoring generals and leaders of the Confederates - remember, those people led an open rebellion against the country.
Museums and historical markers are places for those sorts of remeberances. Memorials honoring the dead and the atrocities of that bloody war make perfect sense and should not be removed (I haven't seen any issues being brought up with those).
But many statues were not erected to honor and memorialize those lost in senseless violence. Many were erected to celebrate the Confederacy, such as the Jefferson Davis monument in New Orleans, which was dedicated in 1911 (during a "whites only" ceremony, no less) on the 50th anniversary of his inauguration. A far cry from laying flowers on graves of soldiers.
We should follow Germany's lead in memorializing our Civil War - focusing only on those who lost in the war or historically important events, and not on the leaders of the side fighting for a great injustice.
Why should we honor and memorialize the leaders of an open rebellion against our country?
So you, 150 years later, know more about what should and should not be done than did contemporaries on both sides who lived through it?
I must say that I am impressed with your ominipotence. Or is it your arrogance?
No clue what you're getting at there or where you're getting 150 years later.

Math. 2019-1866 = 153, 2019-1868 = 151. Those are the dates in OO's posts, and the people acting in those cases were contemporaries.

(05-28-2019 10:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  A lot of those statues (as Lad alluded to) were erected in the early 1900's as an open FU to black people working towards equal rights. So probably neither omnipotence nor arrogance.

I don't believe either OO or I were referring to things done in the early 1900s.

So I mentioned a statue erected in 1911 - well after the end of the war. Did you happen to miss that in my statement?

There are certainly some monuments that were erected to honor the dead and not glorify the Confederacy - and I didn't suggest that didn't occur. I was calling out very specific monuments that I have problems with, and stated why I had problems with them.

Do you think monuments like the Davis statue in New Orleans, were appropriate?
05-28-2019 11:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,673
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 23
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #10
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 10:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 09:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Here is what struck me about those 13 facts:
"One of the first occurred in Columbus, Mississippi, on April 25, 1866 (not quite a year after the end of the Civil War), when a group of women visiting a cemetery to decorate the graves of Confederate soldiers placed flowers upon the bare graves of Union soldiers, as well, in the spirit of national unity."
"... at the Arlington National Cemetery on May 30, 1868. Various Washington officials, including General Ulysses S. Grant, presided over the ceremonies. After speeches, children from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphan Home, among others, made their way through the cemetery, strewing flowers on both Union and Confederate graves, reciting prayers, and singing hymns."
So a group of Confederate widows, as well as Washington officials including U. S. grant, saw fit to honor the dead of sides.
How refreshing that they could see that valor was not confined to one side.
A nice contrast to today's view, which holds that any honor given to Confereates, including statues and monuments, need to be wiped from the face of the Earth, and anybody who does not agree is a racist slavery-lover.
from a liberal in Huffpost
There is no place for statues memorializing and honoring generals and leaders of the Confederates - remember, those people led an open rebellion against the country.
Museums and historical markers are places for those sorts of remeberances. Memorials honoring the dead and the atrocities of that bloody war make perfect sense and should not be removed (I haven't seen any issues being brought up with those).
But many statues were not erected to honor and memorialize those lost in senseless violence. Many were erected to celebrate the Confederacy, such as the Jefferson Davis monument in New Orleans, which was dedicated in 1911 (during a "whites only" ceremony, no less) on the 50th anniversary of his inauguration. A far cry from laying flowers on graves of soldiers.
We should follow Germany's lead in memorializing our Civil War - focusing only on those who lost in the war or historically important events, and not on the leaders of the side fighting for a great injustice.
Why should we honor and memorialize the leaders of an open rebellion against our country?
So you, 150 years later, know more about what should and should not be done than did contemporaries on both sides who lived through it?
I must say that I am impressed with your ominipotence. Or is it your arrogance?
No clue what you're getting at there or where you're getting 150 years later.

Math. 2019-1866 = 153, 2019-1868 = 151. Those are the dates in OO's posts, and the people acting in those cases were contemporaries.

(05-28-2019 10:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  A lot of those statues (as Lad alluded to) were erected in the early 1900's as an open FU to black people working towards equal rights. So probably neither omnipotence nor arrogance.

I don't believe either OO or I were referring to things done in the early 1900s.

So leave up the statues that were placed during a certain time period and take the rest out? Or evaluate each statue on a case-by-case basis?
05-28-2019 11:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,381
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 608
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #11
RE: Memorial Day
I don't see what your problem is is with what I said, but I will say it again, in different fashion:

The people of 150 years ago could display compassion for the dead of both sides, recognizing that they fought valiantly, even if for a side one did not agree with. The people of today, cannot.

Pulling down monuments to Confederates, whether the monuments are individual or collective, for the dead or for the survivors, fails to display this. Therefore it is something we have lost. Compassion? Empathy? A willingness to see the other side? A willingness to lover the sinner while hating the sin?

I do not understand your complaints about 150 years ago, especially when you quote supposed attitudes from 120 years ago.

I think we should honor the dead. All of them. Not just the ones who fit some modern template of what is acceptable now.

How you get omnipotence and arrogance out of an honest expression of opinion, I don't know, although I am impressed with the arrogance and omnipotence you two are expressing. I am glad y'all stepped down from your pedestals to castigate this wrong-thinker. I might have gone on thinking courage and valor, even in a bad cause, should be recognized.

I quoted a self-professed liberal. I guess y'all think she is arrogant too. Oh, and omnipotent.
05-28-2019 11:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,830
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #12
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 11:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't see what your problem is is with what I said, but I will say it again, in different fashion:

The people of 150 years ago could display compassion for the dead of both sides, recognizing that they fought valiantly, even if for a side one did not agree with. The people of today, cannot.

Pulling down monuments to Confederates, whether the monuments are individual or collective, for the dead or for the survivors, fails to display this. Therefore it is something we have lost. Compassion? Empathy? A willingness to see the other side? A willingness to lover the sinner while hating the sin?

I do not understand your complaints about 150 years ago, especially when you quote supposed attitudes from 120 years ago.

I think we should honor the dead. All of them. Not just the ones who fit some modern template of what is acceptable now.

How you get omnipotence and arrogance out of an honest expression of opinion, I don't know, although I am impressed with the arrogance and omnipotence you two are expressing. I am glad y'all stepped down from your pedestals to castigate this wrong-thinker. I might have gone on thinking courage and valor, even in a bad cause, should be recognized.

I quoted a self-professed liberal. I guess y'all think she is arrogant too. Oh, and omnipotent.

You do not "honor the dead" by memorializing the leaders of an insurrection and rebellion...

You honor the dead by memorializing them or the places they died. You notice how there is no concerted effort to remove historical markers at Antietam?

Again, look at how Germany handled WW2. You don't see statues of Hitler or Himmler, commemorating their valor for fighting for what they thought was right. You see monuments dedicated to those who lost their life and were persecuted. You see small remembrances of historically significant areas. You see places like the rally grounds at Nuremberg kept in place, or concentrations camps maintained. All of that is done to remember what happened, honor those that died, but explicitly NOT glorify those who fought for something evil.

I 100% agree that memorials honoring those who died and were scarred by the gruesome war should remain. And that we should keep in place protections that preserve historical places. But I see no reason to leave standing in public memorials of the leaders of a rebellion.

PS - give this persecuted conservative bit a rest - "glad y'all stepped down from your pedestals to castigate this wrong-thinker" - ehgads. Sorry I think your opinion is bad and have told you.
05-28-2019 11:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,280
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1785
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #13
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 11:05 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There is no place for statues memorializing and honoring generals and leaders of the Confederates - remember, those people led an open rebellion against the country.
Museums and historical markers are places for those sorts of remeberances. Memorials honoring the dead and the atrocities of that bloody war make perfect sense and should not be removed (I haven't seen any issues being brought up with those).
But many statues were not erected to honor and memorialize those lost in senseless violence. Many were erected to celebrate the Confederacy, such as the Jefferson Davis monument in New Orleans, which was dedicated in 1911 (during a "whites only" ceremony, no less) on the 50th anniversary of his inauguration. A far cry from laying flowers on graves of soldiers.
We should follow Germany's lead in memorializing our Civil War - focusing only on those who lost in the war or historically important events, and not on the leaders of the side fighting for a great injustice.
Why should we honor and memorialize the leaders of an open rebellion against our country?
So you, 150 years later, know more about what should and should not be done than did contemporaries on both sides who lived through it?
I must say that I am impressed with your ominipotence. Or is it your arrogance?
No clue what you're getting at there or where you're getting 150 years later.
Math. 2019-1866 = 153, 2019-1868 = 151. Those are the dates in OO's posts, and the people acting in those cases were contemporaries.
(05-28-2019 10:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  A lot of those statues (as Lad alluded to) were erected in the early 1900's as an open FU to black people working towards equal rights. So probably neither omnipotence nor arrogance.
I don't believe either OO or I were referring to things done in the early 1900s.
So leave up the statues that were placed during a certain time period and take the rest out? Or evaluate each statue on a case-by-case basis?

I would say case-by-case basis. I don't think any statue that was erected primarily for the purpose of intimidation should be retained in its current position. I think the more appropriate place for statues of confederate soldiers should be on the battlefields where they fought.

I would suggest that a statue like Robert E. Lee in New Orleans would be more appropriately moved to somewhere that Lee actually fought, and could be replaced by someone like Andrew Jackson (who clearly has a strong connection to New Orleans, although I think there are already statues of him) or maybe Claire Chennault (who led the Flying Tigers in China and who died in New Orleans).

I am totally opposed to any attempts to destroy history. But I think some things that are done to remember history could be done in more appropriate places.

I still remember when Memorial Day was known as Decoration Day in the south, and we were taught the story of Columbus in elementary school.
05-28-2019 11:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,830
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #14
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 11:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 11:05 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So you, 150 years later, know more about what should and should not be done than did contemporaries on both sides who lived through it?
I must say that I am impressed with your ominipotence. Or is it your arrogance?
No clue what you're getting at there or where you're getting 150 years later.
Math. 2019-1866 = 153, 2019-1868 = 151. Those are the dates in OO's posts, and the people acting in those cases were contemporaries.
(05-28-2019 10:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  A lot of those statues (as Lad alluded to) were erected in the early 1900's as an open FU to black people working towards equal rights. So probably neither omnipotence nor arrogance.
I don't believe either OO or I were referring to things done in the early 1900s.
So leave up the statues that were placed during a certain time period and take the rest out? Or evaluate each statue on a case-by-case basis?

I would say case-by-case basis. I don't think any statue that was erected primarily for the purpose of intimidation should be retained in its current position. I think the more appropriate place for statues of confederate soldiers should be on the battlefields where they fought.

I would suggest that a statue like Robert E. Lee in New Orleans would be more appropriately moved to somewhere that Lee actually fought, and could be replaced by someone like Andrew Jackson (who clearly has a strong connection to New Orleans, although I think there are already statues of him) or maybe Claire Chennault (who led the Flying Tigers in China and who died in New Orleans).

I am totally opposed to any attempts to destroy history. But I think some things that are done to remember history could be done in more appropriate places.

I still remember when Memorial Day was known as Decoration Day in the south, and we were taught the story of Columbus in elementary school.

It seems like we're in agreement across the board - not sure why the rebuff of my original statement.

To the bolded, it might have been because I wasn't clear enough in my initial comment stating that "there is no place" for certain statues. I meant no place in the public sphere - statues that were erected would ideally be removed from public and sent to a museum or other setting that makes it clear that they are a part of history now, as opposed to a memorial.

I see no reason to memorialize leaders of the Confederacy, and I have been using that term very intentionally.
05-28-2019 12:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,381
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 608
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #15
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 11:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't see what your problem is is with what I said, but I will say it again, in different fashion:

The people of 150 years ago could display compassion for the dead of both sides, recognizing that they fought valiantly, even if for a side one did not agree with. The people of today, cannot.

Pulling down monuments to Confederates, whether the monuments are individual or collective, for the dead or for the survivors, fails to display this. Therefore it is something we have lost. Compassion? Empathy? A willingness to see the other side? A willingness to lover the sinner while hating the sin?

I do not understand your complaints about 150 years ago, especially when you quote supposed attitudes from 120 years ago.

I think we should honor the dead. All of them. Not just the ones who fit some modern template of what is acceptable now.

How you get omnipotence and arrogance out of an honest expression of opinion, I don't know, although I am impressed with the arrogance and omnipotence you two are expressing. I am glad y'all stepped down from your pedestals to castigate this wrong-thinker. I might have gone on thinking courage and valor, even in a bad cause, should be recognized.

I quoted a self-professed liberal. I guess y'all think she is arrogant too. Oh, and omnipotent.

You do not "honor the dead" by memorializing the leaders of an insurrection and rebellion...

You honor the dead by memorializing them or the places they died. You notice how there is no concerted effort to remove historical markers at Antietam?

Again, look at how Germany handled WW2. You don't see statues of Hitler or Himmler, commemorating their valor for fighting for what they thought was right. You see monuments dedicated to those who lost their life and were persecuted. You see small remembrances of historically significant areas. You see places like the rally grounds at Nuremberg kept in place, or concentrations camps maintained. All of that is done to remember what happened, honor those that died, but explicitly NOT glorify those who fought for something evil.

I 100% agree that memorials honoring those who died and were scarred by the gruesome war should remain. And that we should keep in place protections that preserve historical places. But I see no reason to leave standing in public memorials of the leaders of a rebellion.

PS - give this persecuted conservative bit a rest - "glad y'all stepped down from your pedestals to castigate this wrong-thinker" - ehgads. Sorry I think your opinion is bad and have told you.

Hey, it was you guys who brought up arrogant and omnipotent. I still don't know why. I was looking forward to a discussion, buy I was not ready for the personal attacks, and I think your belittling of those attacks is just a further attack.

As for knowing what people of long ago were thinking, I would like to know your sources for the big FU you mention. How do you know that, 120 years later? Did they say FU at the unveiling? I am judging the ladies of 1866 and the President in 1868 by their actions. I agree with their actions. Wish the people of the 21st century could be as magnanimous.

So leaders of rebellions should not be honored or memorialized? I guess we will need to tear down the Washington Monument and the Alamo then. That big statue of Sam Houston on I-45 must go. To hell with the defenders of the Alamo - buncha traitors.

I think the liberal left has rewritten history. As the history professor said in the link I provided (you ought to read it), the war was not fought to free the slaves. Most of the Union was racially prejudiced, and few wanted equality between the races. When blacks were finally allowed to join the Army, they were placed in segregated battalions and under white officers. The slaves in the five slave/Union states were not freed by the Emancipation proclamation. This is not a case of good abolitionists vs. evil slavers.

I have no problem with honoring the dead soldiers of Japan and Germany, for that matter the dead soldiers of any other war. Most of them were not responsible for the evil that (some of) their leaders perpetuated. They fought for country, and fought with valor. If there was a statue of Hitler or Himmler, I would ignore it.

In the link I provided(you really ought to read it), a monument to the "boys in gray" was toppled by a mob. I think that is wrong. It was not a statue of a general. But I think the attitude of "all things Confederate are bad because they were all racists who loved slavery' is spreading and will continue to spread.
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2019 12:21 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
05-28-2019 12:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,830
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #16
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 12:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 11:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't see what your problem is is with what I said, but I will say it again, in different fashion:

The people of 150 years ago could display compassion for the dead of both sides, recognizing that they fought valiantly, even if for a side one did not agree with. The people of today, cannot.

Pulling down monuments to Confederates, whether the monuments are individual or collective, for the dead or for the survivors, fails to display this. Therefore it is something we have lost. Compassion? Empathy? A willingness to see the other side? A willingness to lover the sinner while hating the sin?

I do not understand your complaints about 150 years ago, especially when you quote supposed attitudes from 120 years ago.

I think we should honor the dead. All of them. Not just the ones who fit some modern template of what is acceptable now.

How you get omnipotence and arrogance out of an honest expression of opinion, I don't know, although I am impressed with the arrogance and omnipotence you two are expressing. I am glad y'all stepped down from your pedestals to castigate this wrong-thinker. I might have gone on thinking courage and valor, even in a bad cause, should be recognized.

I quoted a self-professed liberal. I guess y'all think she is arrogant too. Oh, and omnipotent.

You do not "honor the dead" by memorializing the leaders of an insurrection and rebellion...

You honor the dead by memorializing them or the places they died. You notice how there is no concerted effort to remove historical markers at Antietam?

Again, look at how Germany handled WW2. You don't see statues of Hitler or Himmler, commemorating their valor for fighting for what they thought was right. You see monuments dedicated to those who lost their life and were persecuted. You see small remembrances of historically significant areas. You see places like the rally grounds at Nuremberg kept in place, or concentrations camps maintained. All of that is done to remember what happened, honor those that died, but explicitly NOT glorify those who fought for something evil.

I 100% agree that memorials honoring those who died and were scarred by the gruesome war should remain. And that we should keep in place protections that preserve historical places. But I see no reason to leave standing in public memorials of the leaders of a rebellion.

PS - give this persecuted conservative bit a rest - "glad y'all stepped down from your pedestals to castigate this wrong-thinker" - ehgads. Sorry I think your opinion is bad and have told you.

Hey, it was you guys who brought up arrogant and omnipotent. I still don't know why. I was looking forward to a discussion, buy I was not ready for the personal attacks, and I think your belittling of those attacks is just a further attack.

As for knowing what people of long ago were thinking, I would like to know your sources for the big FU you mention. How do you know that, 120 years later? Did they say FU at the unveiling? I am judging the ladies of 1866 and the President in 1868 by their actions. I agree with their actions. Wish the people of the 21st century could be as magnanimous.

So leaders of rebellions should not be honored or memorialized? I guess we will need to tear down the Washington Monument and the Alamo then. That big statue of Sam Houston on I-45 must go. To hell with the defenders of the Alamo - buncha traitors.

I think the liberal left has rewritten history. As the history professor said in the link I provided (you ought to read it), the war was not fought to free the slaves. Most of the Union was racially prejudiced, and few wanted equality between the races. When blacks were finally allowed to join the Army, they were placed in segregated battalions and white officers. The slaves in the five slave/Union states were not freed by the Emancipation proclamation. This is not a case of good abolitionists vs. evil slavers.

I have no problem with honoring the dead soldiers of Japan and Germany, for that matter the dead soldiers of any other war. Most of them were not responsible for the evil that (some of) their leaders perpetuated. They fought for country, and fought with valor.

In the link I provided(you really ought to read it), a monument to the "boys in gray" was toppled by a mob. I think that is wrong. It was not a statue of a general. But I think the attitude of "all things Confederate are bad' is spreading and will continue to spread.

OO, you might want to read the replies again. Owl#s is the one who lobbed those word grenades at me...

But I'm glad you're taking Owl#s to task for making things personal, I did feel like calling me arrogant was a bit too far as well. Thanks for having my back! 04-cheers

It looks like we agree that memorials for soldiers make sense. Glad we agree there.

We disagree that memorials for leaders of the opposing side of a rebellion against our home country are bad.

And finally, I did read that article.

I agree with the author that the Civil War was not fought to "free the slaves." One reason it was fought, though, was over slavery - the Union was not some altruistic force fighting to end an injustice, but the south was motivated to maintain that injustice. The only people trying to rewrite history are those trying to minimize the role it played in Confederacy's motivation.

I also agree, for the most part, that the statue that was toppled was done so incorrectly. It is a perfect example of a statue that should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis - it was erected in 1924, long after the war ended.
05-28-2019 01:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,280
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1785
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #17
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 01:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, you might want to read the replies again. Owl#s is the one who lobbed those word grenades at me...
But I'm glad you're taking Owl#s to task for making things personal, I did feel like calling me arrogant was a bit too far as well. Thanks for having my back! 04-cheers

Yes I did use those words. And I used them in a question of sorts, leaving it as either/or. And yes, I own them and I think them appropriate in that context. Presuming to know with certainty the intentions of people long dead strikes me as the height of either claimed omnipotence, or arrogance--which in that context are probably the same thing.
05-28-2019 01:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,830
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #18
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 01:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 01:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, you might want to read the replies again. Owl#s is the one who lobbed those word grenades at me...
But I'm glad you're taking Owl#s to task for making things personal, I did feel like calling me arrogant was a bit too far as well. Thanks for having my back! 04-cheers

Yes I did use those words. And I used them in a question of sorts, leaving it as either/or. And yes, I own them and I think them appropriate in that context. Presuming to know with certainty the intentions of people long dead strikes me as the height of either claimed omnipotence, or arrogance--which in that context are probably the same thing.

Ironically, you used those words when describing a projection you were making, based on my statements. Something that too seems to be a bit arrogant.

In the text you responded to, I laid out a few of the context clues that can fairly easily show why some statues, and in that specific case, the Jefferson Davis memorial, were not erected to honor fallen soldiers or the like, but to either celebrate the Confederacy (in Jefferson's case), or worse, intimidate.

Does this mean that anytime someone uses contextual clues to evaluate the rationale behind an action they are being arrogant?
05-28-2019 01:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,280
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1785
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #19
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 09:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Here is what struck me about those 13 facts:
"One of the first occurred in Columbus, Mississippi, on April 25, 1866 (not quite a year after the end of the Civil War), when a group of women visiting a cemetery to decorate the graves of Confederate soldiers placed flowers upon the bare graves of Union soldiers, as well, in the spirit of national unity."
"... at the Arlington National Cemetery on May 30, 1868. Various Washington officials, including General Ulysses S. Grant, presided over the ceremonies. After speeches, children from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphan Home, among others, made their way through the cemetery, strewing flowers on both Union and Confederate graves, reciting prayers, and singing hymns."
So a group of Confederate widows, as well as Washington officials including U. S. grant, saw fit to honor the dead of sides.
How refreshing that they could see that valor was not confined to one side.
A nice contrast to today's view, which holds that any honor given to Confereates, including statues and monuments, need to be wiped from the face of the Earth, and anybody who does not agree is a racist slavery-lover.
from a liberal in Huffpost
There is no place for statues memorializing and honoring generals and leaders of the Confederates - remember, those people led an open rebellion against the country.
Museums and historical markers are places for those sorts of remeberances. Memorials honoring the dead and the atrocities of that bloody war make perfect sense and should not be removed (I haven't seen any issues being brought up with those).
But many statues were not erected to honor and memorialize those lost in senseless violence. Many were erected to celebrate the Confederacy, such as the Jefferson Davis monument in New Orleans, which was dedicated in 1911 (during a "whites only" ceremony, no less) on the 50th anniversary of his inauguration. A far cry from laying flowers on graves of soldiers.
We should follow Germany's lead in memorializing our Civil War - focusing only on those who lost in the war or historically important events, and not on the leaders of the side fighting for a great injustice.
Why should we honor and memorialize the leaders of an open rebellion against our country?
So you, 150 years later, know more about what should and should not be done than did contemporaries on both sides who lived through it?
I must say that I am impressed with your ominipotence. Or is it your arrogance?
A lot of those statues (as Lad alluded to) were erected in the early 1900's as an open FU to black people working towards equal rights. So probably neither omnipotence nor arrogance.
Owl#s must have obviously been using his own omnipotence to get inside my head about something I didn't discuss, since 1911+150 = 2061, and I don't think we're quite there yet.
I can use my critical thinking skills I developed at Rice and clearly see that a monument erected of a leader of the Confederacy, erected nearly 50 years after the end of the war, and erected on the 50th anniversary of the inauguration of the president of the Confederacy was not, in fact, erected to commemorate those killed during the Civil War.

No, I was using the dates in OO's post, which do refer to events over 150 years old. As far as that goes, 1911 is over 100 years ago, I doubt that 100 versus 150 really makes much difference. I don't think anybody involved in any of those is still alive.

I think it's appropriate to have memorials at battlefields and in places of birth, death, or residence. Robert E. Lee in New Orleans does not meet any of those, so far as I know. I suggested Claire Chennault, who was born in Texas but is closely associated with Louisiana (airport and former air base in Lake Charles is Chennault Field) and died in New Orleans as someone who would be more appropriately memorialized in New Orleans.
05-28-2019 01:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,830
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #20
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 01:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There is no place for statues memorializing and honoring generals and leaders of the Confederates - remember, those people led an open rebellion against the country.
Museums and historical markers are places for those sorts of remeberances. Memorials honoring the dead and the atrocities of that bloody war make perfect sense and should not be removed (I haven't seen any issues being brought up with those).
But many statues were not erected to honor and memorialize those lost in senseless violence. Many were erected to celebrate the Confederacy, such as the Jefferson Davis monument in New Orleans, which was dedicated in 1911 (during a "whites only" ceremony, no less) on the 50th anniversary of his inauguration. A far cry from laying flowers on graves of soldiers.
We should follow Germany's lead in memorializing our Civil War - focusing only on those who lost in the war or historically important events, and not on the leaders of the side fighting for a great injustice.
Why should we honor and memorialize the leaders of an open rebellion against our country?
So you, 150 years later, know more about what should and should not be done than did contemporaries on both sides who lived through it?
I must say that I am impressed with your ominipotence. Or is it your arrogance?
A lot of those statues (as Lad alluded to) were erected in the early 1900's as an open FU to black people working towards equal rights. So probably neither omnipotence nor arrogance.
Owl#s must have obviously been using his own omnipotence to get inside my head about something I didn't discuss, since 1911+150 = 2061, and I don't think we're quite there yet.
I can use my critical thinking skills I developed at Rice and clearly see that a monument erected of a leader of the Confederacy, erected nearly 50 years after the end of the war, and erected on the 50th anniversary of the inauguration of the president of the Confederacy was not, in fact, erected to commemorate those killed during the Civil War.

No, I was using the dates in OO's post, which do refer to events over 150 years old. As far as that goes, 1911 is over 100 years ago, I doubt that 100 versus 150 really makes much difference. I don't think anybody involved in any of those is still alive.

I think it's appropriate to have memorials at battlefields and in places of birth, death, or residence. Robert E. Lee in New Orleans does not meet any of those, so far as I know. I suggested Claire Chennault, who was born in Texas but is closely associated with Louisiana (airport and former air base in Lake Charles is Chennault Field) and died in New Orleans as someone who would be more appropriately memorialized in New Orleans.

One of my points is that using concrete context clues to evaluate the motives as to why people did something is appropriate, do you disagree with that statement?

You seem to want to pick a fight over that point, yet agree that statues of Robert E. Lee in New Orleans don't make sense (and I would assume you would also agree that Jefferson Davis makes little sense too) based on context of his life.

My other point was that some Confederate memorials are bad and don't belong in our public sphere (note I explicitly don't use the word all, and have been explicit in stating what memorials make sense). You also seem to agree with that opinion.

So why the push back?
05-28-2019 01:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.